You don’t have to include the full details of a published class
We deal with published content all the time that we don’t reproduce in full, for copyright reasons among others. As long as the content is accessible in some fixed form—as opposed to a Google Doc you could keep changing or something—that’s “good enough” for a valid question.
Broad questions seeking broad-strokes answers are acceptable
We handle fairly-broad questions, as long as they’re interested in similarly broad-strokes answers. “Does anything in here stand out as problematic?” is a reasonable enough question to ask. A little more detail, like, “What balance point is this content comparable to?” can work too, provided there is a sufficiently-detailed sense of what balance points exist (e.g. tiers).
At that point, though, you’re not asking about individual internal options; you’re not getting an analysis of each one. You get specific notable options called out, ideally, but that’s all.
But I wouldn’t hold out much hope of actually getting a review
The reason that the above works for official content is because a lot of people have access and familiarity with that content. If it’s in the core rulebook, people playing that game are familiar with it, think about it, talk about it. They can give that bird’s-eye-view overview because they’ve already worked it out for their own purposes and in discussion with other players—they’re telling you something they have already learned, rather than figuring something new out.
For unofficial content, the odds of finding someone with the relevant expertise are slim. The most likely result is that your question goes unanswered.
Actually, the most likely result is that your question gets downvoted and/or closed inappropriately, because too many people on this site think “I can’t answer it” means a question is bad.